mooeypoo

Sione, lose the attitude, you're here to discuss not to lecture. Whatever you may think of others' intelligence or your own IQ, it has absolutely no relevance to any discussion. The claims on both sides are weighed and examined by the merit of the claims themselves, and not by whatever it is you think about the other person - or however higher in the evolutionary chain you see yourself. Lose the ad hominem attack and get your behind off that high tree you put it on so this discussion can actually get somewhere.

north, in post #53 you tried to use undefined circular logic to suggest a definition for an undefined term you interpreted yourself. I wouldn't be boasting that post too much if I were you, and would, instead, try to actually define such term properly, as you are repeatedly asked to do. Hit-and-run sentences might be fun and increase your post-count, but they do nothing to the validity of your claims. In fact, all they do is increase the level of confusion in this already-deteriorating thread. Take responsibility over your own claims and explain them. Properly.

Volume requires four locations? what does that mean? Last I checked, volume is defined in three dimensions.. what do you mean 'four locations'? Logic means you EXPLAIN your statements. That was the first attempt, good. Now make sure you keep doing that every time you state something new, otherwise it's no more than a subjective interpretation that means nothing for a scientific inquiry.

You should, by now, know better than that. If you are ASSUMING or INTERPRETING or sharing your OWN PERSONAL VIEW of anything, specifically one that is unlike what general science views, you should either support it on logic and substantiation (hence - EXPLAIN why you think what you think, and how it may be supported by what we know) or write "in my opinion". Otherwise the discussion is quite moot. I have nothing to debate over your subjective definitions, other than claiming they don't fit what the general definition (in the dictionaries) states. There's a reason we set definitions; we need to speak a common language. If you decide to arbitrarily change these definitions, you need to explain why and how the new definition explains the term better than the current one, for us to accept it. Otherwise we are not speaking the same language.

Then where are the citations? Regardless, I very much hope that the fact you quoted/related to only one sentence of what I said does not mean you didn't read - and will implement - the rest of my post.

That is your (quite insufficient) subjective interpretation. It's hardly a definition or a proper answer to your own subject...

This is a debate forum, not a bash party. You are here to debate, not to lecture and definitely not to belittle others who take the time to respond to your claims. Lose the attitude, lose the ad hominem and personal attacks, this is not the right place for it, and it does nothing to improve the quality of your claims.

?? Where are you bringing these definitions from? Not sure I agree with the definition, to say the least.

I understand your desire to post again, throng, but other than being meaningless, your above paragraph lacks definitions, explanations (what is "minimum space"?) And it is not answering my question. if you mean to reopen a relatively dying thread, you will have to do a bit better than that.

I believe that is called "nowhere", not nothing.

This is a debate forum not a lecture hall -- do you have a question or a debate topic for this? What is it that you want to discuss? Or are you looking for our peer-review? Other than tht, your link's dead -- it's leading to a nonexistent article.

Fair enough. I posted a post analyzing your previous resources.. since it seems to be showing your resources to be against your own claim, I think it's best you re-start from there? But you did post your original theory again despite the many many posts that showed your original claims were lacking. You even used the same problematic phrasing we keep telling you to avoid (since you keep claiming you don't mean it the way it's phrased..) How is that any different? No, it doesn't. Go back to my post before your double-postage, and see for yourself. The research you posted showed something entirely different, and the three claims you made were entirely unsupported by any of the resources -- it was your own conclusion based on the research, which, when examined, seems to be a complete non sequitor. then show it relate to the counter-claims we are making, instead of reposting your theory again. It's not invasive, and it's number six, but I feel just as sexy...

Yes, in this case if there is a "conspiracy" it seems it's more against manufacturing such invention rather than exposing its invention.. anyways, again, I don't know enough to make a judgment, I'm just doing my best to keep an open mind. I'll read up on these pdfs soon.

In that case, shouldn't an evolutionist only be one that studies evolution just like a physicist studies physics? Hence, only evolutionary biologists are "true" evolutionists, according to this. No?

Alright, how 'bout we concentrate on how to bring this discussion back on track rather than dwell in past mistakes? We should debate the definitions and not the person making a claim about the definitions. ~moo

I asked specific questions which you are still in dire need of answering if you want your theory to make any sort of leeway in terms of scientific acceptance. Reposting your arguments with further claims does not do justice to your theory. Ignoring members claims, specifically ones that show that your sources are not supporting your theory, is not doing any justice either. ~moo

Are you serious? did you just post *ANOTHER* version of the SAME theory while ignoring our questions? C'mon Abdul-Aziz.. you can do better than that, you showed us that in the beginning of the thread when you were actually participating in the debate. We are not here to listen to a lecture; if you can't support your claims and participate in a two-way debate, perhaps you should reconsider where you're posting the same theory all over again. You "claiming" there's reasearch is not enough, specifically not when I showed you - in the previous post - that the research you posted is against what you claim. Be serious, so we can take you seriously. Please.

I must say, I'm not in an advanced enough level in physics to fully analyze the claims in this OP. Instinctively it irks me because it "reminds" me of "perpetual motion" machines, but to be fair, this doesn't sound as any of those. It does sound weird to me that there's a conspiracy to hide this technology.. with such a big world and the age of the net, I really have a lot of trouble seeing how such a technology will remain under wraps. Specifically when there *are* people who can gain quite a lot from having it.. but, that doesn't mean the physics is bad. So again, I'm unable to make a judgment on this. I am going to have to go over this again and look up more references. Rom, if you have any *more* references on this (from other sources), I'd love if you post them too.. give me more info to analyze and if anyone can actually help me out analyzing the physics in this to say if it's possible, plausible, or no, and why, I think it is extremely interesting.

I agree.. bombus, I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but I do think it takes courage to post "against" general opinion (or, well, general opinion in this thread, as it seems from the replies in it.. I can't judge for the rest of the world). I still reserve the right to disagree, but don't take my disagreement as a sign of disrespect.. I usually don't debate in the politics forum for various reasons, but this was - as a whole - a generally good debate. Good for you ~moo

I am as much an evolutionist as I am a gravitationalist or a quantum physicalist. The main difference, the way I see it, between "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" is that *USUALLY* - (those two terms are generalizations, which force me to continue generalizing, although knowingly so, so please take it as it is, while including the possibility of exceptions, as I do) - both definitions refer to a single, absolute, point of view. The majority of Creationists that used either term seem to be using an absolute point of view, which seem to generally mean, roughly: Creationist is one that accepts the truth of the biblical creation unquestioningly, and exclusively. That means that any other theory *must* be wrong. And in the eyes of those who *usually* refer to "evolutionists" as such, "evolutionists" see evolution as an absolute truth, accept it without question and therefore all other theories *must* be wrong. The main difference, however, is that scientists who follow the scientific method are, by these above definitions, absolutely *not* evolutionists. Scientific method demands nothingto be accepted *exclusively*, let alone "without question". So what usually irks me about the usage of this term is that instead of using it for people who accept either "view" without question (which is what these two defintions imply) it is usually used to *anyone* who accepts the theory of evolution, regardless of reasons, and regardless of whether or not the person is open for "competing" (if there are any) theories. Above that, I have made a video, long ago, about the use of the word "belief" in science, at least the way I see it. I think it might raise some food for thought, at least: Those are my 2 cents on the matter. I also think the argument went astray here. Definitions can be useful and can be detrimental. Some people like them, some don't, but the general feeling is that a definition is an "absolute", which can be very problematic. I have a friend, for example, whose biggest problems in coming out of the closet, was the definition "Gay". The 'community' expected her to be "proud" of her definition; and society expected her to DEFINE *something*. But what people tend to forget is that some folk don't go "either/or". Some folk don't care, either. Be it in sexuality, belief or general life, definitions are problematic because they imply a definitive absolute, and when arguing or debating, that can result in viewing the other side with an extreme view, rather than trying to find the commond ground. (and isn't reaching a 'common ground' the purpose of a civil debate? it shouldn't end in agreement, but without finding a common ground there is no debate, but rather mutually ignoring/misunderstanding each other's claims). I suggest we drop all definitions about each other in this thread and concentrate on the debate itself. It seems to me we will have much more fruitful results without resorting to ad-hominem attacks, strawman representations and derogatory hints on either side. ~moo

Repeating your statement - big font or not - without addressing the questions that were raised in the thread, is not evidence and does nothing for your theory, Abdul Aziz. People have spent the time to read and go over what you wrote -- three times already -- and posed questions you seem either ignore or lack the ability to confront. Without those problems solved, your theory is dead in the water regardless of how many time you restate it. And as we've stated many times before, you need to provide these empirical research results and methodologies, and not just state tehy exist and give us your own interpretations of them. Where's the reasearch showing this result? How was it done? How was the control group chosen? Was it a blind experiment, or double blind experiment? What was the exact results that led to the above conclusion? Where is the research on this? Who was performing this experiment? Where are the results? Was it double blinded, or blinded? How was this experiment/survey done? Same, same, same and same. You need to supply these details, Abdul Aziz, otherwise all we have is your interpretations of a nonexistent research. Okay, that is indeed something, but when you make a claim (above) you need to show the actual experiment you refer to, at least by reference, so we know what to read and in what context. This research, you even claim so yourself, shows that "female heterosexual attraction was elicited by males who possessed both “nice guy” and “bad boy” characteristics and personality traits" So women were attracted to both. That doesn't mean women are attracted to "bad boy" characteristics as a whole, does it? (Bolded added in quote for emphasis of my point) This, too, is against your initial (and current) conclusion. Women prefer badboys for short term relationships and "nice guys" for long terms. That by no means proves women are attracted more to "bad boys", it just means that they don't stick to these "bad boys" for long. Furthermore, this was done in a single university, with a group of 165 women. Hardly a representative result for the entirety of the feminine gender. Check this quote from your own given research: That research is hardly supporting your theory. Okay, and how does this contribute to your contention that women prefer "bad boys" if it explicitly says that even that small group of research subjects prefered nice guys in long term committed relationships? It claims the exact opposite of your theory. Same points go here. Women prefer "Nice guys" for long term relationships, and hook up to bad boys for short term flings. That seems to be against what you claim. no, no they don't. From the abstract: (bold was not in source, and was added by me to emphasize the point)Notice the word "perceived". The research abstract speaks of the two possible reasons for women wanting to date "nice guys" but ending up dating "bad guys" (and it does NOT make a statement that ALL, or MOST women do, unlike your statement) - it explicitly states that there is a problem in the percieved traits from the potential partner. That means that the potential "bad boy" might PRESENT HIMSELF as a "nice boy" and have the woman date him. That, too, is against your own theory and supplies a different explanation for a (much less generalized) situation. Beyond that, none of these links and resources touch upon any of your initial claims (the "(1)", "(2)", "(3)" claims you made in the beginning of your post). You still lack evidence for your conclusion. ~moo

If you had any findings to share, that might've been an issue. So far you've shared opinions and interpretations and vast-generalizations, non of which are considered "findings of modern scientific investigation". Or non modern. Galileo had a very specific claim with specific evidence, and he was not mocked, he was threatened by the church. You're not quite there yet. Okay. Now, the problem is that you *haven't* shown any empirical data that shows any sort of supportive conclusion; in fact,you were asked multiple times to produce evidence on the basis of your claims and you ended up either modifying your claims (which is okay, if you remain consistent) or ignore the requests. As an example, That claim isn't even *phrased* empirically or in a way that allows for real results to show. Majority how much? 51% or 90%, and how would you test for it? The so called empirical evidence do NOT state this, you have failed to show they do, and you keep moving the goal post every time we ask you to supply evidence for something. When you decided you had enough of the first thread and left, the remaining debaters (me included) had a pretty interested conversation about *how to test* such hypothesis as the one you're making. There were quite good points made there, and you should go over them. So far, you've failed in showing any sort of viable evidence that supports your hypothesis that the women prefer "bad boys" (or find good boys less appealing - same claim differently phrased) OR that the majority of women prefer badboys. And, Can you please give the PCL-R definition and where you took it from? I can't find the definition you speak of. Also, that would be good general practice when writing/presenting a thesis.. link/cite the source. Define substantial percentage. In what you are claiming, I would say 20% is a "substatial percentage", and I have a feeling you mean much higher. This means nothing without you making a NUMERIC STATISTICAL claim, and since you claim to have evidence of this, this shouldn't be any problem for you. I dont' know of any self-respecting statistical research that states "substantial percentage" without putting a number next to it. FINALLY, you're making a specific claim - I have asked you before if you mean this biologically or socially, and you didn't have many answers for it. Now it seems you include it in your claims, which is much better for your theory, because it means it can be tested. If it's biological, there should be evidence - test the women who are attracted to badboys as opposed to those who are attracted to goodboys (if that's even possible, socially, to define those things, but whatever), make sure you have a control group, somehow, (maybe lesbians? that would control nicely), and publish these results. Has anyone done this research before? If yes, then SHOW US the RESULTS before you tell us what conclusions you drew from them; and if not,well, that would be the first step for you to prove your theory. I haven't seen the actual findings yet.. can you link them instead of giving us your own summary and interpretation of them? I really don't see how any of this could have been tested, let along anything to produce such conclusion. ~moo Adition: I think this was missed by AbdulAziz a few times, so I repeat, for the sake of the thread and science in general: First step is to prove women ARE attracted to bad boys, second step is to explain why. Your seem to do this backwards by starting with the "WHY" when the "WHAT" is completely uncertain.

hooya! welcome aboard!

(&John) GOD NO 2% MAKE JOHN ANGRY (&John) 2% MILK [ ...] (&John) someone want to go get me some milk plox? (%mooeypoo) oh.. hold .. myself...... too.... easy...

Abdul-Aziz, you have another thread - on the exact same topic, only phrased differently. If your intention is to open a new thread and rephrase it every time you encounter "tough" opposition or hard questions, I recommend you revisit our forum rules. You are, again, phrasing your thread in a generalized manner, one that I - as a woman who does not follow your theory - completely evaporate by merely existing. If your point is that "many women" find such men repulsive, phrase it properly, so our analysis can concentrate on how such thing can be tested and proven, rather than going in circles - yet AGAIN - with your change of phrasing. We've been over this.